HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-10-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
TIME: 7:30 p.m. - Wednesday - March 10,-1976
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Co~nissioners Belanger, Callon, Lustig, Marshall, Martin, Woodward
and Zambetti
Absent: None
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the read-
ing of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of February 28, 1976 be waived,
and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to correct-
ing the misspelling of the word "cor-ten" on page 4. The motion was carried;
Commissioner MarShall abstained.
II. FINAL BUILDING SITES/TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS
A. SDR-1158 - Mate Voros (Frank Daviar), Pierce Road, Final Building Site
Approval - 1 Lot
Note was made that all conditions of tentative site approval had been met, and
Staff recommended final site approval be granted to SDR-1158. Chairman
Belanger reqU~d specific proof be made on whether Condition (N) regardin~
· the abandonment of the well~ on th~s'Site had ~en made.
After brief discussion of this request, Chairman Belanger moved, seconded by
Commissioner~Lustig, that the Pla~g Commission grant final building site ..~
approval to application SDR-1158 Subject to making th~ finding on whether
Condition (N) of the Staff Report had been met. The motion was carried
unanimously.
Brief disdussion ensued on Mr. Voros as an applicant, with Commissioner
}~rshall making it a matter of record that he considered Mr. Voros to be a
developer, and as such, was expected to',be knoWledgeablein and abide by the
ordinances of the City. The Commission concurred with this feeling, making
note that Mr. Voros would, in future submittals of applications, be regarded
as a developer.'
B. SDR-1226 - John Sadlier, Casa Blanca~ Final Buildin8 Site Approval - 1 Lot
Note was made that all conditions of tentative site approval had been met, and
Staff recommended final site approval be granted to SDR-1226. Chairman Belanger
pointed out that approval of this application would result in the applicant's
property having just under the 35%maximum site coverage, and she suggested
that the Commission give consideration to possible amendment of the Zoning
Ordinance specifications regarding maximum site coverage in the future.
Chairman Belanger expressed the opinion that in the future the City would see
more maximum site coverages within the City,,Y~f~ consequent l~'~f open ~_
.-space, and she wished the City to plan ahead for"such occurrences. "
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Conmissioner Lustig, that the Planning
Conmission grant final building site approval to application SDR-1226. The
motion was carried unanimously.
-~ ~ PC MEETING MINUTES 10, 1976
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. V-446 - David Bo~uan, 13685 Yerba Santa C9urt, Request for Variance to Allow
a Reduction in the Required Sideyard Setback for the Construction of
a Swimmin~ Pool (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7 and 3.2f)
Staff noted that subsequent to the preparation of the Staff Report on this item,
it was discovered that there were additional problems which needed further
study. Consequently, Staff recormuended this matter be continued.
Brief discussion followed on the history of this subdivision by the Commission.
Chairman Belanger pointed out that the subdivision in question had been allowed
to be built at an "R-I-20,000" zone in return for the subdivider preserving
trees on the site. She explained that the building envelopes had been very
carefully set in order to prevent any unnecessary cutting down of trees, and
she argued that a "second-generation owner should not be allowed to do what
we wouldn't allow the subdivider to do." Commissioner Marshall added to
this that there were certain restrictions p~-aced on the placement of
swimming pools in this subdivision, and requested Staff to investigate the
file on this subdivision.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on V-446 at 7:55 p.m. The
Secretary noted that~th~e had been no correspondence received on this matter.
As there were no members of the audience wishing to give public testimony on
_J~. ......--~.~_ this item, Chairman Belanger directed that the public hearing on V-446 be
closed at 7:58 p.m., directed same be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of March 24, 1976, and referred this item to the Subdivision Committee
and Variance Committee for further review and report.
B. V-445 - Robert Foster, 12516 Saratoga Avenue, Request for Variance to Allow a
Reduction in the R~quired Rearyard and Sideyard Setbacks for an
Accessory Structure (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7-1)
Staff explained that this was a request ~o allow an existing storage shed
(18' x 13' x 12' in height) to remain within 22" of the side property line and
within 10' of the rear property line. It was additionally explained that fol-
lowing complaints by neighbors in the area of this structure, the City's
Code Enforcement Officer had instructed the applicant to either remove the
storage shed or apply for a variance. It was noted that the applicant had
expressed a desire to exhaust all procedural efforts for approval of this
-- structure as opposed to relocating it. Staff pointed out that the Variance
Committee had inspected this on site, and that a Staff Report had been pre-
pared recommending the variance application be denied on the basis that it
did not meet any of the"5 ~riteria necessary for granting a variance. Membars
of the Variance Cormittee added to this that the storage shed could be moved
to within the legal setbacks of the zone (10' for sideyard and 25' for rearyard)
and still allow adequate room for backyard use.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on V-445 at 8:00 p.m.
Citizen Response
· Mr. Foster, applicant, stated that he felt it would be a great hardship
on himself and his family to move this shed because of the invasion it
would cause on his lawn and garden, and because of the reduction in the
backyard space it would cause. Mr. Foster argued that moving the shed
to within setbacks would look worse than where it was presently located,
and additionally informed the Commission that the shed was a temporary
structure.~h~h~"~6~l'd'b~ ~ved soon to a site in the mountains. He ex-
plained that the 'shed Was a'knock-down structure which could be removed
within a matter of 2 hours.
· Loran McPeak, 12571 Paseo Cerro, explained that he lived behind the appli-
cant,'and stated that he had no objections to the structure remaining where
it was presently located. He added: "All of the buildings in that area
are located within 1-2 feet of the fence all around anyway. This wouldn't
be any worse than the other neighbors' buildings that are already there."
-2-
PC MEETING MINUTE MARCH 10, 1976
III. B. V-445 - Robert Foster - cont'd
· Oliver Verinski, 12528 Saratoga Avenue, explained that he lived next door
to the applicant (on the far side of the existing shed), and stated that he
had no objections to the existing placement of the storage shed.
Commission Action
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the public hear-
ing on V-445 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hear-
ing was closed at 8:12 p.m.
/"'Cormuissioner Martin, as chairman of the Variance Committee, objected to granting'
this variance in that it would be allowing another non-conforming structure in
an area where many non-conforming structures currently existed. Additionally,
he objected to the granting of the variance on the basis that it did not meet
any of the variance criteria specified in the Zoning Ordinance. On this basis,
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that application
V-445 be denied per the findings of the Staff Report dated March 3, 1976. The
motion was carried unanimously.
The applicant was advised that he could appeal this decision to the City Council
within 10 days of date of Commission denial.
C. UP-297 - Robert Foster, 12516 Saratoga Avenue, Request for Variance to Allow
a Reduction in the Required Rearyard and Sideyard Setbacks for an
Accessory Structure (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7)
Staff noted that the applicant had been advised that if he~re. ceive~_~pp~oval of
( ......."application V-445, a use permit would be required to allow for the 12-foot high
accessory structure (storage shed) on the property. In an effort to expedite
the use permit process if V-445 was granted, the applicant_~.ad applied co~Curr~ntly
for use permitSapplication UP-297.
Inasmuch as this matter had been publicly noticed, Chairman Belanger opened the
public hearing on 1UP-297 at 8:14 p.m.
Staff noted that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this application, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending denial on the basis that
said application did not comply with the Zoning Ordinance's criteria to which
accessory structures must comply.
After brief discussion of this matter, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by
Commissioner Woodward, that the public hearing on UP-297 be closed. The motion
was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:20 p.m.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that applica-
tion UP-297 be denied~Vffih'~prejudice per the findings of the Staff Report
dated March 2, 1976, ~nd tha~'a re'~Und 'of the use permit application fee be
madeto the applicant. The motion was carried unanimously.
D. GF-303 - City of Saratoga, Proposed Amendments to the 1974 General Plan for the
City of Saratoga; Continued from February 25, 1976
Chairman Belanger~reope~d'~h~Blic hearing on GF-303 at 8:25 p.m.
The Secretary explained that the Subdivision Committee had suggested the City
Council) Policy ~tatement Re: Consistency of Zoning Ordinance with General Plan
dated May 7, 1975 be modified to include a more definitive explanation of the
density ranges prior to taking action on these specific General Plan amendments.
Note was made that per the Connnission's request at its last meeting.to modify
said Policy, a brief presentation had been given by Staff to the Subdivision
Cmm,~ittee on all remaining identified Zoning Map/General Plan inconsistencies,
and that it had been determined that no additional inconsistencies had been
identified as a result of the Conmission's suggested,policy definition.
After brief discussion of this modified Policy, Commissioner Marshall moved,
seconded by Connnissioner Martin, that the City Council Policy Statement Re:
Consistency of Zoning Ordinance with General Plan dated May 7, 1975 be modified
to include :as part of'~h'~d[f~i'ffi~'fi'~h'~'T~llowing clarifications of the density
PC MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 1976
III. D. GF-303 - City of Saratoga 1974 General Plan Amendments - cont'd
ranges: Very Low Density: Acreage through R-i-20,000
Low Density: R-1-40,O00 through R-l-15,000
Medium Density: R-1-20,O00 through R-l-10,000
and that said modified Policy be forwarded to the City Council with the CommissionZs
recon~nendation that it be approved. The motion was carried unanimously.
~ Relative to GF-303, Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing, continued same
........ ~0 'the Planning Conmmission meeting of=April i'4~. 1976, and referred this matter
to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
RECESS: 9:05 - 9:25 p.m.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-517 - Abe Carriea, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval
Addition to Existing Commercial Buildin~ Continued from Feb. 25~ 1976
Note was made that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. It was explained
that the applicant was proposing to add additional square footage to his
existing commercial building complex, said additional space was intended for a
new and separate C-V use. Staff explained that the addition would be separated
from the existing structure, although it would be architecturally an exact
duplication of the existing structure.
Considerable discussion followed on this application, with the consensus of
the Planning Commission being to continue this item pending further investiga-
tion. Specifically, Staff was requested to supply the following information:
(1) date of approval of existing building; (2) exact use of existing building;
and (3) whether it was the intent of the owner to break through the old build-
ing into the new heilding via a common access-way.
Several Commissioners expressed concern that the present building was not being
used legally, and there was relunctance on the part of many Con~issioners to
grant approval to this Design Review application if the present use was
illegal. Additionally, CommissionerMartin-expressed the.~Rini0n ~hat the_.ch~ac-
~ ter of the existing ~6'i'~ '~eeded to be upgr'aded~ a~d he expressed opposition
to granting the extension of such a building.
!~ After additional disc~ssip~ Chairman Be~anger directed A-517~be continued to
the Planning commission meeting of April 14, 1976, and referred this matter to
the Design Review Committee and SubdiviSion Committee for further review and
investigation. Staff was directed to address the above-mentioned ~uestions
and to advise the Saratoga }~nor Homeowners Association of the status of this
application. Further, Staff was directed to ask the applicant to be present
..... at_ ~he~e~s!gn R~vi~w Committee meeting. ~g~ndized for review of this
B. A-518 - Manuel Costa, Quito RgaA, Final Design Review Approval - Landscaping
of Commercial Property
Staff noted that this was an application for landscaping plans to screen the
rear portion of a C-N zoned site on Quito Road. It was explained that the
front portion of this site was occupied by a commerdial development, and it
was the intention of the applicant to use the rear portion of this site as
a parking lot for a landscape contractor.
Co~f~issioner Lustig, as chairman of the Design Review Committee, gave a brief
description of the application, noting that the Design Review Committee had
reviewed this matter and that a Staff Report had been prepared reconmending
-4-
%' '-PC MEETING MINUTES OF ~ 10, 1976
IV. B. A-518 - Manuel Costa - cont~d
approval. Commissioner Lustig explained that 2 oRponents of said aRplication
~-had been in attendance at this meeting, and that an agreement had been reached
."B%tweeB said neighbors and the applicant reg~'~'di'~ this matter. Further n~? -.
~'~ made that a petition_s__igned____b_y ne~ghb_o~ing__~i_d~.h~ been submitted
'~ supporting landscaping plans of this site., ~ ~
At this point, C~x--,~issioner Marshall raised a point of order, contending that
this application was illegal under Ordinance NS-3, Section 7.6. Specifically,
questions were raised as to whether a parking lot housing trucks was an allowed
use in a C-N zone. The Secretary noted that Staff interpreted Section 7.2 as
~ ~i~ing ~k%~ lots ~mproved in conformance with standards described in off- '
7 street parking facilities in a C-V zone. It was further noted by Staff that th~
'Zpning.OrHinance does not differentiate between trucks and cars in parking lots.
Discussion ~ollowed on these differences of interpretation of Sections 7.2 and
7.6, and Staff was requested to obtain an interpretation from the City Attorney
regarding this matter. Chairman Belanger directed application A-518 be con-
tinued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 24, 1976, and referred this
matter to the Design Review Committee, Staff and the City Attorney for further
review and report.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. SDR-1207 - Jeffery Omodt, Sobey Road, Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot;
Request for Reconsideration of Condition (B) of Staff Report dated
November 4~ 1975; CoBtinued from February 25~ 1976
Staff noted that this was a request for reconsideration of Condition (B) of
tentative map approval relevant to dedication and improvements of the abutting
Sobey Road right-of-way. Attention was drawn to the memorandum from the
Assistant Director of Public Works .sUggesting a modified Condi'tion (B), and
to the-a~dgd'S~f~f'Re~: dated March 3, 1976 reflecting this modification.
Note was made th~t't~e'appIicant was aware of said amended Condition (B) and
concurred with same.
Con~nissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Cc~mnissioner Zambetti, that the
Planning Commission adopt the amended Staff Report dated March 3, 1976
and Exhibit "A" on application SDR-1207. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. UP-295 - Haven Nursery, 12858 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Resolution for Use
Permit to All~ Continuation of the Non-Conforming Commercial Use
in a Residential Zoning District
The following corrections were made to Resolution UP-295-1 as prepared by the
City Attorney: (1) the application name was changed to "Sarath Vidanage and
James McCandless, dba Haven Nursery;" and (2) Item 7 on page 2 of Exhibit "A"
was modified to read: "All signs shall be subject to prior Design Review
approval. Materials used shall be of a rustic nature."
After brief discussion of this matter, Eommissioner Lustig move~, seconded
by Cormnissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission approve Resolution UP-295-1,
as amended, dated March 10, 1976. The motion was carried unanimously°
C. Referral from City Cou~l - Rezoning of Fremont U~i~'~'H'i~h'S~h'~'6I'Pro~tF,,~
Pr6~p~Ct Road .........................
The Secretary explain~d'~h'~eh~Ei't~'C~'~fl'h'~d'~fe~d this matter to the
Con~nission in order to consider holding public hearings on rezoning this site
from its present "R-l-12,500/R-l-15,000" zoning to "g-l-40,000o" Note was
made that at the last Co~x~ission meeting on this referral, Staff had been re-
quested to verify the Council's intent as to whether the Conmission was re-
quired to hold public hearings on this matter. Staff reported that in review-
ing the Council minutes and tapes, it was the Secretary~s feeling. that the
Council was suggesting that a public hearing b~_h~ld~__~.Secre~ary ad_vise~.,.~
however, that the Commission should not hold public hearings on this item
-5-
.. PC MEETING MINUTES OF ~H 10, 1976
V. C. Referral - Rezonin~ of Fremont Union High School Property - cont'd
insomuch as he considered it to be an additional burden on the Commission and
would result in an additional taxpayer expense. He explained that in his opinion
an additional public hearing on this matter would allow for the complete and
repetitive discussion of this site on which the Commission had already arrived
at a clear and concise position. He pointed out that this item was heard rele-
vant to its consideration for R-i-40,000 during the General Plan public hearings,
and the previous consideration leading up the CoamLission's reco~nendation for
R-i-20,000 PC zoning on the site. Additional note was made that at the last
Commission meeting on this item, the Commission had expressed a consensus
opinion that, if necessary, it would hold public hearings on this item per
the Council's request, but with relunctance.
The Secretary drew the Commission's attention to the Staff Report-on this mat-
ter dated January 22, 1975, and suggested the Planning Commission fom~ard to
the City Council its recommendation that the Fremont Union School property be
rezoned from "R-l-12,500/R-l-15,000" to "R-i-20,000 PC" as per the Staff Report
dated January 22, 1975.
Chairman Belanger agreed with the Secretary's recommendation, adding t~at she
would like Staff to transmit this St~ff Report to the City Council along with
a memorandum from the Planning Conmission explaining the Commission's relunctance
to rehear this item. Chairman Belanger requested that the Secretary's above-
referenced remarks be incorporated in this memorandum. Further, that the memo-
randum should make reference to the fact that the R-i-20,000 PC designation would
provide for clustering on 0-5% slope which was adjacent to~an existing R-!~1~.~590
development. The R-I-20,000 PC designation would provide for an established
neighborhood density on adjacent flatland, thereby leaving open space as the
property arose to the west. Consequently, this would provide for a potential
for continuity of open space between this property and that of the Parker Ranch.
Chairman Belanger further requested that the City Attorney's remarks on h~ a
"PC" designation could be achieved be added to this memorandum. Essentially
these remarks provided-~a~ ~n. ordinance to rezone this property to R-I~2'0V0'0D'P~'
could be introduced by the City C0'Unt~l~' ~' '~"~' ~cond rea~i~"b~'~i~/4hei~'"
until a potential development application was made and a site plan was submitted.
At that time a second reading and finalization of the ordinance could be made by
the City Council. It was explained that this procedure would in essence place
potential developers on notice that the area would have an underlying zone of
R-I-20,000 with a strong requirement.that the houses were to be arranged in a
planned community order.
After brief discussion of this proposal, Commissioner }~rshall moved, seconded
by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission transmit to the City
Council the Staff Re~ort dated January 22, 1976 reco~,m~ending that the Fremont
Union High School property be rezoned from "R-l-12,500/R-l-15,000" to
"R-I-20,000 PC", and additionally transmit to the City Council the topography
map on this site 'as well as a memorandum incorporating the Co~f~f~ission~s comments.
The motion was carried unanimously.
VI. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Environmental Impact Determinations
The followinR Negative DeClarations were. filed between the period of
February 26, 1976 and to date:
· Public Project ~27 - Quito-Pollard Roads Improvements
® Public Project ~28 - Landscaping Project for Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Medians
· Public Project ~29 - Demolition of Existing Building and. Accessory
Structures on Arco Site Located on Big Basin Way
B. Other
1. Memorandum dated March 2, 1976 to the Subdivision Committee from the
Assistant Planner regarding the addition of "senior citizen housing"
to Section 3.3, Article 3 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3, which would allow
-6-
· PC MEETING MINUTES OF }~RCH 10, 1976
VI. WRITTEN CO}~f0NICATIONS '- cont'd
senior citizen housing as a conditional use in an R-1 zoning district.
CommiSsioner Marshall requested that the Commissioners review this
proposal'; ana suggested that a ~ublic hearing be scheduled for revi~
of this item.
After Brief discussion with many of the Commissioners expressing endorse-
ment of this proposal, Chairman Belanger directed Staff schedule this
item for public hearing for the Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 1976.
2. Letter dated March 8, 1976 from SamAnderson, attorney representing
Archibald Brolly, requesting final building site approval be granted
to application SDR-1136, which would expire March 11, 1976. The Secre-
tary explained that Mr. Brolly had requested and received approval for
an extension of this application by the Land Development Committee at
its meeting of March 4, 1976. It was noted, however, that the Committee
in granting such extension, added 2 conditions to the Staff Report: one
requiring improvements for Fruitvale Avenue and the other requiring the
entering into of a landscape maintenance agreement.
The Secretary explained that inasmuch as Mr. Brolly was not interested in
making the full improvements along Fruitvale Avenue, he had attempted to
obtain final building site approval prior to the application's expiration.
It was noted that a!l conditions of tentative site approval had been met,
including entering into a landscape maintenance agreement, entering into
an offer of dedication for a section along Fruitvale Avenue, posting bonds
and paying fees, and that all of the necessary documents had been prepar~a
and signed b~ .the applicant for ~0mp!e~on of final site approval. i_
Staff additionally noted that all of these conditions hadjn"6E'b~en met
.._ until March 9, 1976; consequently subsequent to preparati~'a'nd 'fna'iling ......
of the March lOth agenda. The Secretary explained that he had suggested
to Mr. Brolly that he request final building site approval of the Commission
under the Coum~unications portion of the March 10th agenda.
The Secretary also noted that in discussing this item with the City Attorney,
it was Mr. Johnston's interpretation that the applicant did not need to
obtain final building site approval from the Commission prior to the
applicationIs expiration insomuch as all conditions of tentative site
approval had been met prior to expiration of the application.
After brief discussion, Commissi mer Marshall moved, seconded by ConmLissioner
Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final building site approval to
application SDR-1136. The motion was carried unanimously.
3. Letter dated March 5, 1976 from James P. Hardy, President'of West Valley
College, notifying the City that the College intended to submit an appli-
cation for amendment of the 1967 Use Permit (UP-119) in order to provide
the proposed outdoor bleachers, lighting, appurtenant structures and ski
hill lights projects; and further requesting that said application be
acted upon within 60 days of receipt of the amended application. Addi-
tionally, reference was made to an article in the West Valley College
newspaper reporting the Governing Boards~ pg~tiop r_egardi~g. ipProyeme~ts [ "
ma_d_e...._a_t_.th_e City'$.re~t; i..e_.,_ ip the apprgxi.ma~____am0un~_~of $28~000...
For clarification, the Secretary noted that at the College's meeting he
artended in March, the Governing Board had indicated in reference to the
amended use permit that they had the authority to supersede the City, if
they so desired, and exempt themselves from the use permit provisions.
They had directed their Staff, however, to notify the City of their intent
to go through the amended use permit process as long as it could ~e accom-
plished within 60 days of application date.
In preparation of this use permit application and in response to the above-
referenced article, Staff indicated that they were presently investigating
the cost and other impacts incurred by the City in its involvement With
West Valley College; i.e., providing additional police services, street
improvements, signalization, etc.
-7-
-j-._ ~ PC MEETING MINUTES OF ..~LCH 10, 1976
VI. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - cont'd
Discussion followed on this issue, and it was Chairman Belanger's feeling
that the City should participate in a public education program on this
matter in an attempt to give the Saratoga citizens a full comprehension
of the impacts West Valley College and its expanded uses have had on the
"Ci~yT'Wi~h spe~i'fid'Fe~e~ce to the proposed stadium, Commissioner Zambetti'
contended that this facility would be best located at the Mission Capus.
He e~plained that per a personal study he had made, the Missfon Capus
" would. be located and surrounded by 292 acres of industrial property, 62
acres of commercial property, a large theme park which would attract over
2'million people per year, a Hilton Inn and a very good freeway access.
After further dialogue on this matter, Staff was requested by the Planning
Commission to prepare a Commission communication summing up what the impacts
of West Vall~y:-'College have been and will be on the City, a copy of which
should be forwarded to the Saratoga News.
VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. City Council Report
Conmissioner Lustig gave a brief report on the City Council meeting of
March 3, 1976. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the
City's Administration office.
B. Other
1. Mr. Jim Isaacs, resident of Saratoga, explained that (~eferencing the
West Valley stadium proposal) it was the Governing Board's position that
both the Mission and West ValleX campuses should be-~l~ comprehensive~
~,,~h'ic~' would entail stadiums as well as other facili~f~ '~ eX~r~'~
the opinion that, inasmuch..~s the. City Council had set a precedence in
presenting a history of the Parker Ranch in the newspaper, he felt it
would be appropriate for factual and h~stori~al information authored by
the Commission on West Valley College'to appear i~-the-Saratoga-News-.
2. Commissioner Callon gave a brief summary of the Planning Policy Committee
meeting held in ~b'~d~ry, sp~ff~ly__~~ng ~Fansi~ ma_~rs_~
3. commissioner Marshall recommended that the Planning Commission rearrange
its present agenda to include a "Consent Calendar" heading in order to
expedite 'action o~ agendamatters not requiring Commission discussion.
He suggested'thi~'Calendar be arranged in such a way that if there were
items thereon which any of the Commissioners wished to discuss, such items
could be easil~_~!1~d off the Consent Calendar and discussed~d~'~h~
: appropriate headings2 The remaining Consent Calendar items coul'd t~en
:'~6ee'd'~n as a group by the Commission. :~F'b'Fi~f"'d'i~c~'~B'i-on of this
suggestion, it was the consensus of the Pla~'~ng'~6m~i~-~-i-o~-that a "Consent
Calendar" heading be placed on Commission meeting agendas in order to
expedite-' r~_t.~n~. ma_t_t.e__rs Whi~ d° _npt .F~quire__commiss~o~.~ischssion'
4. Chairman Belanger acknowledged the presence of Councilman Kra~s,-Richard
Brown of the Chamber of Commerce, Col. Mayfield '0f ~he'Good Gm~ernment
Group, and expressed appreciation to Mrs. Stark of the Good Government
Group for serving coffee.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission meeting of March 10, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried
unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
skw/ Ma uyn, Planning Secretary
-8-